Month: February 2018

This week’s reading was somewhat unconventional, as our article was a comic book. Although I had never watched the television show, The Walking Dead in cartoon form was very interesting to read. Even within the first few sections of the book, there were various parallels to Cohen’s The Undead.

For example, in one of the scenes, the main character sees a zombie and cries the first time. In his second encounter, he pulls the trigger on the zombie, but does it reluctantly, and ends up crying once more. Just as Cohen argues that there is more to an essence of a zombie than a horrendous, diseased creature who loves eating brains, in this comic, this zombie is a reflection of a potential friend, partner, or distant relative of the protagonist.

One interesting feature of zombies that I noticed is the fact that zombies are not vicious towards each other. When Rick and Glenn go into the city to get guns, they are protected from other zombies temporarily, as they rubbed zombie residue all over themselves to recreate the smell. However, this only lasted for ashort amount of time, as the rain began to wash away the scent. When relating this to Cohen’s claim, it seems that zombies, otherwise dubbed “fears”, are not harmful to each other, but have the potential to be very deadly to humans. However, much like the way zombies did not harm Rick and Glenn when they were scented, when we learn to embrace our fears, we are capable of making ourselves immune to our weaknesses.

Sources:
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/The-Walking-Dead/Issue-1?id=1715
https://www.gograph.com/illustration/accept-button-gg61835774.html
https://www.gograph.com/illustration/green-arrow-over-wall-means-overcome-obstacles-gg63088456.html

In this week’s reading of The Undead by Cohen, I enjoyed exploring a different perspective on the essence of zombies. In the past, the word “zombies” would trigger images of undead, diseased beings who seek to consume human flesh and brains. However, Cohen conveys a more positive interpretation of zombies. Rather than being afraid of the idea of these creatures, he celebrates how zombies give us a way to give form to various aspects of our lives (408).

The most evident aspect of our of lives which zombies reflect is our fears. I believe that Cohen admires the quintessence of zombies because only when we truly visualize our fears, are we capable to recognize and overcome our fears. Much like our fears, zombies are very undying, threatening, and are capable of consuming us when we decide not to take any action to prevent them. For example, in the movie It, some of the fears of the characters are portrayed as zombie-like figures. These creatures come to life as the characters’ greatest fears, but as they learn to accept these zombie-esque beings, the characters take their first step in overcoming what they fear (410). In light of this phenomenon, Cohen expresses how zombies so vividly represent our fears, and thus, we are able to more effectively overcome them.

I agree with the author in that confronting our “zombies” is the most effective method to overcome our fears. Initially, this process will inevitably difficult because even the slight thought of such horrors shocks us. However, because they exist as one of the most graphic thoughts inside our minds, through full visualization and acceptance, we are capable of defeating the very entities that seem undying.

After reading “Using Sources” from The Craft of Research, I learned the importance of being able to read and absorb information as accurately and critically as possible. Often times, people tend to get hindered by focusing too hard on finding information, which causes them to forget the importance ofrecording what they find. Furthermore, our bias leads us to grasp onto our beliefs in a way that prevents us from retaining information objectively.

In order to stray from having our bad inclinations hinder our research, the author stresses how imperative it is to read within the context. In other words, when recording information or writing about it, we must look at that piece as a portion of a whole puzzle, rather than by itself. One reason for this is that “researchers build complex arguments out of several elements” (100). By disregarding the claim and support that the researchers build upon to establish a message, we are prone to misread its purpose. For example, the book compares “The war was caused by x” and “The war was caused by x, y, and z” (100). In the first quote, we miss two significant causes of the war, which is a grave mistake to make. By only using a portion of the quote, our applications of the information we find become very limited, which prevents us from further substantiating our claims.

This phenomenon is reflected by other parts of our lives, such as the saying, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Instead of prematurely formulating a conclusion, we should learn to see the whole picture to not only get the optimal information, but also to get the most correct facts.

Sources:
https://images.megapixl.com/4295/42959312.jpg
http://weclipart.com/gimg/183E159F39EC6839/MissingPuzzlePiece_1.jpg
http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2016/01/04/63587483323600346362412802_carrot%20(2).jpg

Last November, American author Ta-Nehisi Coates did a book tour for We Were Eight Years in Power. During this event, a white girl questions Coates about what to do when non-African Americans spew out the “n” word. In essence, Coates explains how a stigma exists due to its history, as “words don’t have meaning without context” (Coates). Because the origins of this word sprouted from white slave owners condemning African Americans, not everyone is allowed to use it in everyday life.

This phenomenon is not limited to the “n” word; rather, it extends to our relationship with other people. For example, it is acceptable for Coate’s wife to call him “honey”, but it would not be okay for a stranger to call him the same. In this sense, the word in itself may not be derogatory, but the context in which it is used defines the meaning of the word. For African Americans, amongst each other, the “n” word may be acceptable because of their level of relationship. On the other hand, it would be unacceptable for a white person to call another African American by the “n” word, due to word’s context in the past between whites and African Americans.

Personally, I find it interesting that an white individual, whose native language may be English, is forbidden to use a word within their own language. Throughout this quarter, cultural hybridity has always been looked at in a positive aspect, but the “n” word shows that there are certain aspects of cultural hybridity that does not reflect a favorable turn in history. Although words have their own meanings, their true definitions are established through various forms of context. 

Sources:
https://www.alternet.org/sites/default/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/screen_shot_2013-09-09_at_11.15.05_am.png?itok=u51WDOI6
https://headguruteacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/x20142711071202qitokro-s8uda-pagespeed-ic-afnisfpvf0.jpg?w=640
https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/10/13/636119392031889369953848753_customer-relationship.jpg

In this week’s reading of “Monster Culture”, Cohen talks about seven different theses that depict what a monster is. Amongst these different descriptions of monsters, there are two that stuck with me: one that I completely agree with and one that I do not agree with.

Cohen states that monsters “inhabit the gap between the time of upheaval that created it and the moment into which it is received, which essentially means that the monster’s significance is defined by the culture that perceives it (Cohen 4). I agree with this argument, as there have been instances in the past when individuals with physical and/or mental disabilities were dubbed as degenerates of society. For example, those who had leprosy were often ostracized by the community around him/her, as the rest of society did not want to associate with that individual. However, today, the sick are very well-cared for by not just those in the medical field, but also by those around them within their community.  Although the ailing were once categorized as monsters by their society, now they are not condemned as degenerates but are encouraged as human beings.

 

The thesis I disagree with is “monsters are our children” (20). Children themselves are not monsters in their current state, as they are simply innocent beings. However, I believe that once children lose their innocence, they can become a monster. Often times, parents strive to protect their children from the cruelties of the world, in hopes to never have their children scarred. 

Unfortunately, the children grow to inevitably face the negative aspects of society, which is what causes them to question “why we have created them” (20). As children lose their innocence, they bear self knowledge, which gives them the power to have their own interpretation of everything around them, resulting in the witnessing of potential lies told by their parents.

Sources:
http://www.edspire.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/monster.png
https://img1.etsystatic.com/196/0/16468631/il_340x270.1403118431_rucn.jpg
http://kindredmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_244072531.jpg